[EasyMark]

I never understood why the west didn’t help more with the legitimate government forces in Russia, even if it meant more spies and what not. It was clearly crumbling and that’s when stuff like crime and corruption breed, even more so than in the old USSR, but we just sat back and patted ourselves on the back instead of seeking out allies in Russia.

[vkou]

The West did prop up Yeltsin and his insane economic plan, because he was a useful idiot, and then at the eleventh hour, he named Putin his successor, just before he resigned due to... Taking a bribe of a few thousand dollars. Apparently (in a society full of grifters), that was enough to burn him, not attacking parliament with artillery and tanks and killing 200 people.

The problem wasn't lack of government power, the problem was that shock therapy was a fucking awful way to handle the transition, that Yeltsin was a shitty autocrat who carried out a successful, bloody coup (Which didn't stop him from enjoying Western support - which would overlook any autocratic power grab, as long as Russia under him underwent shock therapy. Friggin' Bill Clinton campaigned for him), and that NATO turned from a purely defensive alliance to an offensive alliance and started acting unilaterally in what Russia felt was it's sphere of influence. (After a few years of good relations and bilateral collaboration.)

All that turned out to be a great way to rebuild an antagonistic relationship.

If you really want to point fingers at, though, I suppose you could blame Gorbachev for failing to keep the USSR intact and resigning, handing over power to assholes like Yeltsin. Gorbachev was a far better statesman and general human being than his successors were.